Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe has made his first public appearance since the country's army took over on Wednesday.

President Robert Mugabe attended a graduation ceremony in the capital, Harare.Mr Mugabe had been under house arrest for days. The army made its move after a power struggle over his successor.The military said on Friday it was "engaging" with Mr Mugabe and would advise the public on the outcome of talks "as soon as possible".Mr Mugabe was cheered by the crowd at the graduation ceremony after he spoke, a witness quoted by Reuters news agency says. He joined the crowd in singing the national anthem and walking slowly up a red carpet.Neither his wife, Grace Mugabe, nor Education Minister Jonathan Moyo - an ally of hers whose house was reportedly raided by the military - were present.The 93-year-old president's attendance at the graduation is an annual tradition but few expected to see him there after he was put under house arrest, the BBC's Andrew Harding reports from Zimbabwe. The army took control after Mr Mugabe last week sacked Vice-President Emmerson Mnangagwa, signalling that he favoured Grace Mugabe to take over his Zanu-PF party and the presidency.Mr Mugabe's appearance at the graduation ceremony made it look like business as usual but it's not. This has simply added to the confusion about his future.The military has essentially been in control for three days and, with the help of South African envoys, has been in talks with Mr Mugabe.This cunning and experienced leader has resisted the push to go immediately but he is facing unprecedented pressure to step down after nearly four decades in power.[

Zimbabwe's ruling party has sacked President Robert Mugabe as its leader.

Zanu-PF has appointed ex-vice-president Emmerson Mnangagwa, who had been fired by Mr Mugabe two weeks ago.The sacking of Mr Mnangagwa had prompted an extraordinary chain of events as the military intervened to block Mr Mugabe, 93, from installing his wife Grace in his place.Tens of thousands of Zimbabweans attended street protests on Saturday to demonstrate against the Mugabes.Mr Mugabe is set to meet military leaders on Sunday and a motorcade has been seen leaving his private residence.The head of the influential War Veterans Association, Chris Mutsvangwa, told Reuters news agency that the party was also starting the process of removing Mr Mugabe as the president of the country.Reuters also reports that First Lady Grace Mugabe has been expelled from the party altogether.BBC correspondent Andrew Harding, at the meeting, tweeted a video of people dancing after the decision to remove Mr Mugabe was taken.

Grace Mugabe to be prosecuted along with a 'number of others', a Zanu PF official has said.

The news comes after the sacking of Robert Mugabe, who has been dismissed as the head of the ruling Zanu-PF party and replaced by the deputy he fired earlier this month.Mrs Mugabe, who had been chair of the party’s women’s league, was also dismissed.Emmerson Mnangawa will take over as leader of the party, Chris Mutsvangwa, the chairman of the Zimbabwe War Veterans Association confirmed.Zimbabwe's parliament will 'definitely' impeach Robert MugabeRobert Mugabe's rule nearing an end as party poised to dismiss himMr Mutsvangwa also said the party was beginning the process to remove Mr Mugabe as President of Zimbabwe.Mr Mugabe, 93, remains president of Zimbabwe, after calls for him to resign following the military takeover on 15 November.At Zanu-PF's Central Committee meeting, Obert Mpofu, minister of home affairs who chaired the group, said Mrs Mugabe was to blame for taking "advantage" of the leader, Al Jazeera reported.Mr Mpofu said: "We meet here today with a heavy heart because Mugabe's wife and her close associates have taken advantage of his frail condition and abused the resources of the country."I warmly welcome you all to this historic meeting which will mark a new era, not only for our country but for the party."Mrs Mugabe, 52, has not been seen since the takeover and is believed to be under house arrest in Harare.A controversial figure known as “Gucci Grace” over her spending habits, she had been positioning herself as a successor to her husband and had been calling for the removal of Mr Mnangawa for weeks.The couple, who now have three children, married in a lavish ceremony in 1996 after having an affair while Mr Mugabe was still married to his first wife, Sally, who was terminally ill at the time.At the time, Mrs Mugabe had been working at a typist for Mr Mugabe.

Zimbabwe's ruling Zanu-PF party is set to begin impeachment proceedings against President Robert Mugabe on charges that include allowing his wife "to usurp constitutional power".

The motion is now due to be presented to parliament on Tuesday.

Senior party member Paul Mangwana said the process could take as little as two days to complete, and President Mugabe could be removed by Wednesday.

A deadline set by Zanu-PF for his resignation passed on Monday.

Separately, military leaders said they had planned a "roadmap" for Mr Mugabe's future, and that the ousted former vice-president, Emmerson Mnangagwa, would return to the country soon.

Grace Mugabe and Mr Mnangagwa had both been seen as potential successors to the ageing president. But last week, Mr Mugabe fired his deputy - widely seen as an endorsement of his wife - prompting a military intervention.

The country's top general said Mr Mugabe and his former deputy had been in contact, and would hold in-person talks soon.

It begins at last. His wife is a greedy wicked witch!

And of course, he demanded full legal immunity against any future prosecutions!

After six days Mugabe has finally resigned. This is a great day for the people of Zimbabwe. Brilliant news.

Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe has resigned, parliament speaker Jacob Mudenda has said.A letter from Mr Mugabe said that the decision was voluntary and that he had made it to allow a smooth transfer of power, the Reuters news agency reports. The surprise announcement halted an impeachment hearing that had begun against him.Lawmakers roared in jubilation and people have begun celebrating in the streets.Mr Mugabe had previously refused to resign despite last week's military takeover and days of protests.He has been in power since independence in 1980. Mr Mugabe has won elections, but over the past 15 years these have been marred by violence against political opponents.He has presided over a deepening economic crisis in Zimbabwe, where people are on average 15% poorer now than they were in 1980.What triggered the moves to oust him was his dismissal of Emmerson Mnangagwa as vice-president two weeks ago.That decision was seen by many as clearing the way for Mr Mugabe's wife, Grace, to succeed her husband as leader. It riled the military leadership, who stepped in and put Mr Mugabe under house arrest.

OK lets not forget that Mugabe was on our side in the cold war. The 2nd half of the cold war was not a struggle between Communism and anti Communism, but between the Soviet Union on one side and the West and China on the other. Mugabe was one of China's clients. Commies often like to whine about us backing reactionary Afghan Mujahedin, they fail to mention that Pakistan and the Mujahedin were also backed by China.

Let us also remember that Reagan's noble alliance against the evil empire included the likes of Mugabe and the Khmer Rouge. Really our glorious victory in the Cold War was about as inglorious a victory as it was possible to get.

There is no objective divide between war and genocide; self-defence and war; possessions and property; or property and theft

Potemkin wrote:It looks like Mugabe's usual genius for political manipulation has finally deserted him. He has remained in power for so long precisely because he knew how to balance the various conflicting factions within Zanu-PF in their jostling for political power and status. Even his support for the veterans' takeover of white-owned farms, and the disastrous economic and political fallout of that, was a consequence of his political savvy - the veterans were carrying out these takeovers spontaneously, without his backing, for weeks beforehand, which presented Mugabe with a problem - if he suppressed them, he risked losing their political support, which he depended on to remain in power. He hesitated for about a week, then threw his lot in with them and endorsed their violent takeover of the white farms, throwing Zimbabwe into political and economic crisis. However, his strategy worked - he kept the backing of the veterans, and he remained in power for another decade or so. But this recent crisis concerning the succession has led to a rare political fumble by Mugabe - by dismissing his deputy and heir-apparent, a favourite of the veterans, and making his wife Grace the new heir-apparent, Mugabe alienated and angered the veterans, who have finally struck back.

This is indeed a coup d'etat. However, Mugabe himself will likely not be formally overthrown or forced to resign as President - he is still, after all, the hero of the Liberation, and the father of his nation. He will likely be confined to house arrest (though the military probably won't call it that) and remain as the nominal head of state. The real power in Zimbabwe, however, will be firmly in the hands of the military. And Grace Mugabe will likely be arrested, if she hasn't already fled the country.

Rich wrote:Libya was achieving staggering rates of growth at the end of King Idris's rule. It wasn't hard. Gadaffi's economic management was amazingly bad, rather like his diplomatic skills. People seem to forget, relative to population Saudi was oil poor compared to Libya. Libya is comparable to Norway. Islam has managed to deliver a magnificent shit-hole in what should have been the north African Norway.

This is quite similar to the social and political situation of Arab countries. countries such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan, where the dictates have to smartly navigate complex tribal conflicts and wishes. The big difference though is that Saudia and Jordan are in ties with the west. Lybia however threw away alliance with the west, but the internal situation of both pro western or pro -Russians, is similar- a society which is based on tribes and loyalty to families, and a strong dictatorship to manipulate them, to put force when needed, and to listen to their demands, as Saudi family needs to satisfy the strong religious wahabbis part.

anarchist23 wrote:Hyper inflation over the last twenty years has blighted the country.70% are living in extreme poverty and the average wage is three US dollars a day.

Rich wrote: In fact I would go further and say that there would have been no Soviet Union without the First World War.

Potemkin wrote:The Great War determined everything which happened in the 20th century

We have to remember there was an attempt to coup in 1905; Zar Nikolay was just bad, he didn't want to rule, and he allowed rival organization to grow (as Loui the 16 was too liberal). That, combined with economic crisis / a war/ a crisis, just leads the way to a coup. WWI was a reflection of a growing tense in the 19th centuary, where Germany was a powerful country who didn't mannage to capture a share, as well as a growing ideology break.. so WWI was a symptom that caused a chain reaction, but the causes are deeper. And also, the ideological causes that allowed the atheist dictates to rule (Hitler, Stalin), were also a resault of an ideological break that occured during the industrial revolution, and allowed new form of dictatorship to immerge as soon as a crisis occurs.

WWI was a reflection of a growing tense in the 19th centuary, where Germany was a powerful country who didn't mannage to capture a share, as well as a growing ideology break.. so WWI was a symptom that caused a chain reaction, but the causes are deeper. And also, the ideological causes that allowed the atheist dictates to rule (Hitler, Stalin), were also a resault of an ideological break that occured during the industrial revolution, and allowed new form of dictatorship to immerge as soon as a crisis occurs.

I would agree with that. The First World War, after all, didn't come out of nowhere. It was the trigger for almost all the social and political crises of the 20th century, but it was itself the result of the internal conflicts and unresolved contradictions of late 19th century Europe. In that respect, the 20th century did not represent a break with the 19th century framework of social and political development, but was the catastrophic working out of the unresolved problems created by 19th century progress itself. The revolutions, wars and unrestrained violence of 20th century history was necessary to resolve these contradictions. This, after all, is what violence is for. People who claim that "violence solves nothing" clearly haven't read a history book in their lives.

However, I would make a distinction between the European atheist dictators of Europe (of whom there were many, but Hitler and Stalin are the most famous) and dictators like Mugabe, Gadaffi, and the like. The latter, being on the peripheries of the West and ruling over pre-industrial agrarian societies, tend to be traditionalist despots (even when they claim 'revolutionary' credentials). Mugabe, after all, was a devout Christian, just as most Arab dictators claim to be devout Muslims, and far from being 'totalitarian' dictators they preside over fractured, tribal societies. The ideological break with the past which the industrialisation of the 19th century created only affected Europe, and has not yet affected the Middle East or Africa, which are still essentially pre-modern societies due to their lack of material development.

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Marx (Groucho)

Potemkin wrote:I would agree with that. The First World War, after all, didn't come out of nowhere. It was the trigger for almost all the social and political crises of the 20th century, but it was itself the result of the internal conflicts and unresolved contradictions of late 19th century Europe..

Absolutely and totally agree. And these societies were by our standards fundamentally and totally conservative. Even Republican France, none of this latte Liberal, sjw, egalitarian nonsense of giving votes to women. The First world war was not the fault / glory of female monarchs, female cabinet members, female representatives or female voters.

Where I disagree is with Marxist Imperialism. The elites of Europe went to war for patriotism, nationalism and human universalist idealism (however manipulated and hypercritical the propaganda) not for concern over the rate of profit or to fix it through empire. The scramble for Africa at a national level (individuals made great personal fortunes), was for pride and prestige. With the odd exception like Congo, the revenues, the size of the imports and the size of the exports from the new colonies were miniscule.

There is no objective divide between war and genocide; self-defence and war; possessions and property; or property and theft

Potemkin wrote: The revolutions, wars and unrestrained violence of 20th century history was necessary to resolve these contradictions. This, after all, is what violence is for. People who claim that "violence solves nothing" clearly haven't read a history book in their lives.

Violence is a necessary part of nature. I would argue though that you can promote things in a less violent way sometimes, and the best example is French revolution VS Britain's slower reforms toward democracy.

Wars is indeed a necesary thing sometimes and avoiding them at any cost is as bad as doing them unecessarily; but the problem is it often doesn't bring the wanted and predicted outcomes, same case with revolutions. Second, I do believe that things "grow"; so the more behaviour we adapt, the more common it will be; so if everyone uses more violence, eventually it will grow.

The ideological break with the past which the industrialisation of the 19th century created only affected Europe, and has not yet affected the Middle East or Africa, which are still essentially pre-modern societies due to their lack of material development.

Ahhh what about the Baathist movement? These regimes were very different than the Saudi model. BTW, these regimes occured outside the Arab peninsula which is more traditional. Well I actually don't know to tell whether they are facing ideological changes or not. Their collectevistic structure of society doesn't allow to promote various groups who live different lifestyle as seen in Europe; so the changes and tension might apper in a different way. They are making less children; they are facing extremism- so they do have changes; and in Africa they do have struggle against traditional medicine, etc. However I don't see there political parties based on ideologies, rather on tribes. And perhaps the changes are been swallowed by the "tribe" and aren't as sharp as a resault, meaning individuals do not change their lifestyle as easily, so it remains eventually more traditional . The move to the big cities though might change the picture though. Oh, that, and the internet- but that something occures now and not 200 years ago.. although they were in touch with the west.

Violence is a necessary part of nature. I would argue though that you can promote things in a less violent way sometimes, and the best example is French revolution VS Britain's slower reforms toward democracy.

Wars is indeed a necesary thing sometimes and avoiding them at any cost is as bad as doing them unecessarily; but the problem is it often doesn't bring the wanted and predicted outcomes, same case with revolutions. Second, I do believe that things "grow"; so the more behaviour we adapt, the more common it will be; so if everyone uses more violence, eventually it will grow.

That's a valid point; people tend to become habituated to whatever is accepted as 'normal' in their social environment. The underlying problem, of course, is that most people have no sense of personal morality whatsoever, but just tend to act in accordance with accepted social norms. In other words, they do what they think they can get away with. Lol. The First World War undoubtedly had a coarsening effect on European values and behaviour - people became much more willing to use violence to get their own way. As WB Yeats lamented: "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."

Ahhh what about the Baathist movement?

And where are the Baathists now? The Baathist ideology failed precisely because the MENA region was not ready for it. That mixture of Western models of socialism and nationalism could only have succeeded in industrialised societies; when presiding over tribal , pre-industrial societies it quickly devolved into just another traditionalist despotism. It just had more modern Western-type rhetoric, that's all. In Iraq, the Baathists ended up siding with ISIS, a band of Islamist fundamentalist throat-slitters, and in Syria they've ended up struggling for their existence in a society torn by civil war between rival tribes and sects.

These regimes were very different than the Saudi model. BTW, these regimes occured outside the Arab peninsula which is more traditional. Well I actually don't know to tell whether they are facing ideological changes or not. Their collectevistic structure of society doesn't allow to promote various groups who live different lifestyle as seen in Europe; so the changes and tension might apper in a different way. They are making less children; they are facing extremism- so they do have changes; and in Africa they do have struggle against traditional medicine, etc. However I don't see there political parties based on ideologies, rather on tribes. And perhaps the changes are been swallowed by the "tribe" and aren't as sharp as a resault, meaning individuals do not change their lifestyle as easily, so it remains eventually more traditional . The move to the big cities though might change the picture though. Oh, that, and the internet- but that something occures now and not 200 years ago.. although they were in touch with the west.

You put your finger on the essential point here - urbanisation. The industrial revolution creates an urban proletariat who are landless and propertyless and who are cut off from their own traditional culture and social values. This racinated urban proletariat are the raw material out of which modern society was created in the West. Unless and until that process occurs in the MENA and in Africa, the politics of that region will be pre-modern and based on tribes rather than ideologies.

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Marx (Groucho)

Potemkin wrote:You put your finger on the essential point here - urbanisation. The industrial revolution creates an urban proletariat who are landless and propertyless and who are cut off from their own traditional culture and social values. This racinated urban proletariat are the raw material out of which modern society was created in the West. Unless and until that process occurs in the MENA and in Africa, the politics of that region will be pre-modern and based on tribes rather than ideologies.

Now after we mostly agreed, let me chalange it abit. I once read an article suggests only Egypt faced such urbanization and individualism since this state is extremely crowded and is based on one maga city. Now when I think about it, did Egypt faced the social changes?If we look further of the economic and industrial changes in Europe and compare them: in the Arabian penninsula they did face tramendous technological transformation and bourgeoisifying. Yet it seems they didn't have any ideological movement, concerning self criticism and rebelions on former lifestyle and culture. Their changes are adapted and fits the traditional lifestyle and patriarchy.

However we do see in Eastern Asia tramandous changes, linked to the urbanization and industrialization. They just face rapid changes. Even if Japanese lack self criticism, even if China is far from democracy, I think their societies changed alot. I don't see such a change in the ME or Africa. You can say Africa is yet to be industrialized, so are lrge parts of the middle east, but the Arab penninsula was.

So aside the geographic changes, perhaps you need something else too. Perhaps you need generations of intellectuals to form intellectual infrustructure, to help ideological and social changes, and that was in China and Europe.

Now after we agreed, let me chalange it abit. I once read an article suggests only Egypt faced such urbanization and individualism since this state is extremely crowded and is based on one maga city. Now when I think about it, did Egypt faced the social changes?

Indeed, and Egypt became the cultural and ideological centre of gravity of the Islamic world. Is this a coincidence?

If we look further of the economic and industrial changes in Europe and compare them - in the Arabian penninsula they did face tramendous technological transformation and bourgeoisifying. Yet it seems they didn't have any ideological movement, concerning self criticism and rebelions on former lifestyle and culture. Their changes are adapted and fits the traditional lifestyle and patriarchy. They canges they do have, don't break their society as they have shaken Europe.

Saudi Arabia never industrialised. It didn't have to - it had its oil to pay for everything. This meant that an urban proletariat never really developed in Saudi Arabia, and the old traditional tribal politics could just carry on as usual.

So perhaps its not just geographic, perhaps its also something else. We do see in Eastern Asia tramandous changes, linked to the urbanization and industrialization. They just face rapid changes. Even if Japanese lack self criticism, even if China is far from democracy, I think their societies changed alot. I don't see such a change in the ME or Africa. You can say Africa is yet to be industrialized, so are lrge parts of the middle east, but the Arab penninsula was.

The Arabian pensinsula was not industrialised. The people of that region are still what they were 200 years ago; they are Arab tribesmen with smartphones and Rolex watches and who watch Youtube videos and play Call of Duty nowadays, that's all.

So aside the geographic changes, perhaps you need something else too. Perhaps you need generations of intellectuals to form intellectual infrustructure, to help ideological and social changes, and that was in China and Europe.

The intellectual superstructure is not created by the abstract thoughts of intellectuals, detached from the material world. Instead, the development of the material infrastructure leads to the need for new ideas and new thoughts to better organise the changing society. This leads to people coming up with new ideas which, more importantly, are listened to, and lead to the formation of ideologies. After all, guys like Plato or Lao Tzu or Archimedes and the like had all the great ideas back in the day, but it was like a river running into sand because the material development of their societies had not progressed sufficiently for their ideas to be implemented or even listened to. Society has to be ready for these ideas before they will take root.

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Marx (Groucho)

Potemkin wrote:Saudi Arabia never industrialised. It didn't have to - it had its oil to pay for everything. This meant that an urban proletariat never really developed in Saudi Arabia, and the old traditional tribal politics could just carry on as usual.

Phew what argument is that? Technicaly, they were industrialized. Too fast / having others to work for them (up to 90% of UAE's population is foreign workers), doesn't change the fact they are having modern infrustructures now.

So what are you saying- they didn't have to make any social changes or to struggle, so they didn't have to make any ideological change?

The intellectual superstructure is not created by the abstract thoughts of intellectuals, detached from the material world. Instead, the development of the material infrastructure leads to the need for new ideas and new thoughts to better organise the changing society. This leads to people coming up with new ideas which, more importantly, are listened to, and lead to the formation of ideologies. After all, guys like Plato or Lao Tzu or Archimedes and the like had all the great ideas back in the day, but it was like a river running into sand because the material development of their societies had not progressed sufficiently for their ideas to be implemented or even listened to. Society has to be ready for these ideas before they will take root.

What is a readiness of society? I think its something built over time, over generations of literate people who create a knowledgable enviornment, which allows ideas to absorb and spread to a wider range of people. Europe always had the intellectual - literate core (priests, Jews), and even that was not enough- it took hundreds of years to slowly spread education before the society was ready for changes. In the 19th centuary, Europe already had universities, net of intellectuals, and a literate society. All of this doesn't occur in the Arab penninsula. In the rest of the middle east though there was intellectual core, but it seems very limited, so it might take time. Alot of time, considering the stepping backwords and the escape of the intellectuals out of ME and Africa.

Lao Ze and Aplaton spreaded ideologies and changes; the society was ready to be "civilized", even if it weren't industrialized.

Phew what argument is that? Technicaly, they were industrialized. Too fast / having others to work for them (up to 90% of UAE's population is foreign workers), doesn't change the fact they are having modern infrustructures now.

So what are you saying- they didn't have to make any social changes or to struggle, so they didn't have to make any ideological change?

That's exactly what I am saying, yes.

What is a readiness of society?

The state of development of its forces of production.

I think its something built over time, over generations of literate people who create a knowledgable enviornment, which allows ideas to absorb and spread to a wider range of people. Europe always had the intellectual - literate core (priests, Jews), and even that was not enough- it took hundreds of years to slowly spread education before the society was ready for changes. In the 19th centuary, Europe already had universities, net of intellectuals, and a literate society. All of this doesn't occur in the Arab penninsula. In the rest of the middle east though there was intellectual core, but it seems very limited, so it might take time. Alot of time, considering the stepping backwords and the escape of the intellectuals out of ME and Africa.

Lao Ze and Aplaton spreaded ideologies and changes; the society was ready to be "civilized", even if it weren't industrialized.

You're putting the cart before the horse, I think. New ways of thinking are created by new ways of being. And new ways of being are created by new relations of people to the mode of production. This is what is absent in the MENA region - its backwardness is not caused by a shortage of intellectuals, but by a shortage of new ways of relating to the mode of production in those societies. In the absence of those new ways of being, those new ways of living and of relating to the world and to each other, almost no-one is going to listen to new ideas or new thoughts. Why would they? They will just think such new ideas are weird and/or degenerate.

And as for Plato, he had to flee from Syracuse at the dead of night because he feared the tyrant he was trying to educate to be a 'philosopher-king' was about to have him executed. His society was clearly not yet ready for his new ideas. And Lao Tzu eventually gave up on Chinese society and journeyed alone into the uttermost West on the back of a donkey. Lol.

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Marx (Groucho)

Readiness to new ideas isn't just labour and geographic formation, which plays an important and necessary role. But in addition to these changes, you need educated and smart people.

You need a society of people who read, before they listen to few genious people.

If only now the first university in the UAE is opening, it means indeed they have just rolex, slaves, and sand. African people do work hard in the other hand, and are coping now industrialization in some matter. But they lack any former layer of intellectualism. So ideas and global knowledge can't penetrate. You need to grow in a smart enviornment to be smarter yourself.

Lao Tze may gave up, but he influenced alot after his death. China has a strong heritage of civilization, and they catched up easily.

Readiness to new ideas isn't just labour and geographic formation, which plays an important and necessary role. But in addition to these changes, you need educated and smart people.

You need a society of people who read, before they listen to few genious people.

If only now the first university in the UAE is opening, it means indeed they have just rolex, slaves, and sand. African people do work hard in the other hand, and are coping now industrialization in some matter. But they lack any former layer of intellectualism. So ideas and global knowledge can't penetrate. You need to grow in a smart enviornment to be smarter yourself.

Indeed. But why did the UAE not feel the need to even have a university until now? Because they didn't need one. Their oil would just pay for everything, so why bother taking on board new ideas? Indeed, why bother even thinking about anything at all, ever? It is their relation to the mode of production which determines how people think, and even indeed whether they think at all. The UAE had no need of an educated workforce and no need even of an educated elite. So they just didn't bother. The West went to all the trouble of educating its people from the early modern period onwards because it needed to. The capitalist mode of production required it.

Lao Tze may gave up, but he influenced alot after his death. China has a strong heritage of civilization, and they catched up easily.

Indeed. The Chinese people were slow learners, but they managed to catch up quickly. And after all, guys like Confucius, Lao Tzu and others had left them a great legacy.

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Marx (Groucho)